Earth to Pearce: Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen

Republican mastermind Karl Rove believes President Barack Obama was born in the United States, is a citizen, and is a Christian. He said so when he was in Las Cruces several weeks ago.

“Do you believe Barack Obama is a born U.S. citizen?” ABC newsman Sam Donaldson asked Rove during a session at the NMSU Domenici conference.

“Absolutely. I also believe he’s a Christian,” Rove said. You can watch it beginning at 28:45 in this video.

Donaldson was asking because of a poll released in August that found that 27 percent of Americans and 41 percent of Republicans believe Obama was “probably” or “definitely” born in another country. Another poll showed that 18 percent believe Obama is a Muslim.

Donaldson asked Rove why so many believe Obama was born in another country when that claim has been demonstrated to be false.

At a Sept. 30 event in Los Lunas, a woman asked Pearce whether he is willing to support the subpoenaing of Obama’s birth certificate. She also asked whether Pearce believes Obama “is in fact a Kenyan-born, Indonesian Muslim.”

Pearce said Obama “raised the most significant questions himself” when he said he had traveled to Pakistan – at a time when, Pearce claimed, it was not legal to go there with a U.S. passport.

“Those questions need to be asked,” Pearce said. He said Congress has other priorities, like repairing the economy, and he’s “content to let the courts handle” the question of Obama’s citizenship – which he claimed the Supreme Court is doing.

But if the Senate gets involved, Pearce said, “I don’t mind being in the fight.”

“Yes, and I don’t have a problem expressing my opinions or expressing a vote, either one,” Pearce said.

The facts on Obama’s citizenship and faith

The factual problems with Pearce’s words, from the Huffington Post:

“Pearce appears to be off on a few counts in his claims. In 2008, Obama mentioned a trip to Pakistan he took when he was 20 years old, which he hadn’t written about his books. Skeptics of Obama’s citizenship speculated that he went there with an Indonesian passport while his mother was married to an Indonesian man because Americans weren’t allowed to travel to Pakistan at the time. As FactCheck.org reported, however, ‘(T)hat claim is quite false. There was no such ban. Americans traveled there without incident, as shown by a travel piece that appeared in the New York Times in 1981, dated June 14. Barbara Crossette, an assistant news editor of the Times, told her mostly American readers they could travel to Lahore, Pakistan, by air, rail or road, adding: ‘Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports.’’

“…Additionally, the Supreme Court is not considering a birther case. Birthers Orly Taitz and Phil Berg have tried to bring high-profile lawsuits questioning Obama’s citizenship, but they have been rejected each time.”

More importantly, Obama is a citizen. This is a question that has been asked and answered. Politifact.com is among the news organizations that looked into the situation. It obtained a copy of Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate and verified with the Hawaii Department of Health that the birth certificate is valid.

“I’m a Christian by choice. My family didn’t — frankly, they weren’t folks who went to church every week. And my mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew, but she didn’t raise me in the church. So I came to my Christian faith later in life. And it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead: being my brothers’ and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me.

“And I think also understanding that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings – that we’re sinful and we’re flawed and we make mistakes, and that we achieve salvation through the grace of God. But what we can do, as flawed as we are, is still see God in other people and do our best to help them find their own grace.”

Does Pearce actually believe what he said?

Just like George W. Bush won the 2000 election, Barack Obama won the 2008 election. He meets the constitutional requirements to be president, and he is president. End of story.

It’s one thing to disagree with and fight against Obama’s policies. But perpetuating false claims about Obama’s citizenship, while perhaps politically beneficial for conservative politicians, helps empower those on the extreme, fringe right who may be willing to resort to violence.

That statement is not an attack by me on the tea party or the far right. I, like others, have expressed concern about the out-of-control spending in this nation. In my experience, most people in the tea party movement aren’t crazy. But every movement has a few crazies.

The words of political leaders like Pearce have the potential to set off those crazies. Politicians must be aware of that reality and approach it cautiously, or they risk playing a role in the incitement of violence.

Pearce is intelligent. I’m assuming, or at least hoping, that he knows Obama is a citizen. So I have to wonder if he was pandering to people whose votes he was trying to win with his statement in Los Lunas. If so, he’s irresponsibly playing with fire.

If, on the other hand, Pearce actually believes what he said in Los Lunas, well, that’s an entirely different reason to be concerned about his candidacy for Congress.

29 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.

First off, I’d like to point out that in two points, you’ve shown an inability at basic reading comprehension; the Gore commentary was directed at ksparks, and was actually prefaced with his username. The other was the second amendment, which, as you cut-and-pasted, begins with, “a well regulated militia…” In other words, gun control (not bans, but control) is not only constitutional, but is actually recommended by the Constitution, if not mandated. Just something for you to think about the next time you decide that torture, warrantless wiretapping, and tax dollars going to religious institutions are alright.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure (and this is not the first time I’ve said this), I’m a professional political strategist. As such, I read twenty-seven traditional news sources every single morning, in addition to HuffPost, Drudge, Newsmax, TPM, and this site (and Monahan, which, like most people here, I read strictly for the hysterical leaps of illogic). Your “Huffington Press” comment was cute, but quite frankly wildly inaccurate. It should be noted that a Pew study around a year ago showed that 40% of self-described “liberals” also watched and read media that would be described as hostile to their viewpoints (Fox, Newsmax, etc.). For self-described “conservatives”, this percentage is 6%. That’s not a typo, nor a rounding error. I mention this because you claim that I (and others) are getting our facts from an echo chamber, when there is plenty of evidence that it is far more likely for us to open up to opposing views. In fact, that’s just basic neuropsychological differentiation between liberal and conservative brain types.

In further disclosure, I would also like to say that, of all those sites, this is the only one which I habitually comment on, and for one reason. People like you and ksparks (and from time to time Dr. J) are excellent practice for the irrationality that I have to deal with every single day; people who honestly believe things that, while now considered legitimate contributions to our political discourse, used to be confined to the very rear echelons of the tin-foil hat brigade. Let’s just say I consider you lot a hobby.

You made further errors by bringing up Civil Rights, which was passed in 1964 by a Democratic Congress, signed into law by a Democratic president, and is generally considered to be the defining reason that the Democratic Party lost control of the south… because all of those (conservative) Democrats you’re talking about who were responsible for Jim Crow laws and black voter intimidation promptly became Republicans in retaliation. This is hardly a good demonstration of the intolerance of the Democratic Party.

It should also be noted that at no point did I ever say it was “cool” to be a conservative in Hollywood. I wouldn’t know what is “cool” in Hollywod, nor do I care; it has absolutely no bearing on my life nor my career. All I know is that most movies are vapid and pointless, and frankly that’s all I need to know about the big-bad known ubiquitously as “Hollywood”. All I pointed out was that the GOP is the party that likes to use them as the perennial political bogeyman, but that it is that same GOP who have run a larger percentage of people who they disparagingly call “Hollywood Elites” for public office. I would also point out that people who are actual trying to solve real problems – rather than scare voters – couldn’t care less about Hollywood. As an institution (or whatever conservatives see it as), we’re talking about a place with little real political influence on the national stage, and even less at the state level outside of, well, California. As usual, you read only what you want to in order to feel you are correct.

This brings me to money. Let’s assume for the moment that OpenSecrets weren’t a site I frequent for professional reasons (which it is). All you’ve done by linking to it is provide me with evidence that you literally don’t know what you’re talking about. As stated before, this election cycle is filled with massive donors in the wake of the Citizens United ruling, but that also means that the nature of that money has changed. Direct contributions to Democrats are similar to what they have been in previous years. The same type of money for Republicans is similar (in percentage) to 2008 levels (which I will address shortly), but what has increased beyond all reasonable measure is PAC money, which (conveniently for you) isn’t included in the FEC’s numbers, and, as near as anyone can tell, is used in to favor Republicans by staggering margins. The reason I say “as near as anyone can tell” is because many of these groups are refusing to release either their donor lists or their expenditure lists, claiming that the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling means they don’t have to. Almost all of these are self-described conservative groups, including Crossroads GPS, NFIB Safe Trust, Citizens for Prosperity, several groups with the now-hysterically ubiquitous and ever-inaccurate label of “Tea Party”, and…. Citizens United (how convenient). The FEC has now confirmed that they’re investigating at least one (Crossroads) for fraud.

Now we have 2008 to address – the year that you felt proved your point, so you just stopped reading. The 2008 election cycle is a classic demonstration of the coat-tail effect. Due to then-Senator Obama’s incredibly effective internet donation drives (not to mention a remarkable ill-will felt by American citizens against the GOP), other Democratic candidates were able to reach out to tens of thousands of brand new donors. However, if you had bothered to check history prior to that point (on the very site you liked to), you would have noticed that Republicans received larger (and higher totals of) contributions than Democrats in every single year prior to that rather sudden change in methodology and balance of power.

I will also insert a brief note pointing out that you probably should have chosen a day to complain about “left-wing” violence that didn’t include a man admitting that he wanted to murder members of the ACLU because he watched Glenn Beck. There has been a marked increase in right-wing lone wolves and militia groups in the past two years, and getting defensive about that statement doesn’t help solve the problem.

Finally, in your closing paragraph, you said the following:In the end you my friend are no different than many of those who came before you and feel the need to hate everyone who even disagrees with you slightly and that is a lot more worry some [sic] than some guy saying he is showing up to a rally with a gun.

I would say that I’m sorry that you feel that way, but that would imply surprise at your attitude – in fact, I knew that you were going to say something of this nature eventually. Your problem (and the reason that you ignore and disparage facts that disagree with your pre-formed viewpoint) is that you seem psychologically incapable of separating the personal from the political. Because I disagree with you, you are absolutely convinced that I “hate” you – not even merely “dislike”, but “hate“. Everything in your world appears to be absolute, and disagreement is the same to you as hatred and intolerance. Let me assure you; I simply don’t care about you. I have evidence that many things you believe (or what little I know you believe) are incorrect, and I point out those errors, but I have absolutely zero personal feelings about you. None at all. If I saw you injured, I would stop and help, and if you were down-and-out, I would do what is in my power to correct the inequity, but my feelings for you as a person are completely nonexistent. My feelings about your politics are, I trust, clear.

Go to <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/DonorDemographics.php?cycle=2008 "and you can see the break down of donors to parties and once again my friend you are wrong. According to OpenSecrets.org the percentage of those giving $95,000 or more is 61% to Democrats and 31% to Republicans so once again you should check your facts before you try and accuse others of being intelectually inferior to you!

One slight problem with the data at OpenSecrets is that it doesn’t include donations of under $200, so, making conclusions from their data is tricky.

That said, an interesting statistic to watch is how much donors give to a particular party. These kinds of contributions help balance out the effect of wealthy donors giving to both parties simultaneously. Here’s a tally for the past 10 election cycles, in the form of year, money given to Republicans by donors only donating to Republicans, and money given to Democrats by donors only donating to Democrats, with all dollar amounts in millions of dollars.
1990 $120 $78
1992 $186 $181
1994 $180 $151
1996 $346 $220
1998 $238 $180
2000 $505 $360
2002 $360 $328
2004 $747 $656
2006 $516 $477
2008 $846 $1136

So, basically, when adding up all instances in which individuals, PACs, corporations, unions, etc., donated more than $200 to politicians of a particular party, or the party itself, or its congressional committee, etc., Democrats have outspent the Republicans in 1 of the last 10 election cycles. 1 of 10. It looks like this year might be the second in a row for Democrats but let’s wait until after November for the data to appear, okay?

IcarusPhoenix clearly I have nothing to do today since I am spendingmy time having this discussion with you knowing no matter what I say you will either say I am not telling the truth or you will totally ignore my comments and branch off into an entire new discussion. With that said I will humor all of those who care to follow this exchange.

Below is the Second Ammendment to the Unitede States Constitution ( I hope I have now passed your first test?)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Your discussion about contributions would be funny if it wasn’t so scary that I think you actually beleive what you are writting. Corporate COntributions to Republicans pale in comparison to the Union money that is taken from hard working Americans and in somoe cases used against their actual beliefs, and handed out to almost exclusively to democrats.

Total Raised
Democratic Party $663,585,511
Republican Party $440,973,995

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2010 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission

Go to <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/DonorDemographics.php?cycle=2008 "and you can see the break down of donors to parties and once again my friend you are wrong. According to OpenSecrets.org the percentage of those giving $95,000 or more is 61% to Democrats and 31% to Republicans so once again you should check your facts before you try and accuse others of being intelectually inferior to you!

As to your total rambeling about Hollywood and conservatives re-writing history, not sure what to sya other than to remind you of the revisionist histroy you all have when it comes to Civil Rights and the work of the democrat party to keep people of color from voting. Last time I checked you are the only person who believes it is "cool" to be a conservative in Hollywood, that would make you a pack of 1 by the way! I am not sure how much more I can go into this here since you clearly have no desire to discuss facts other than what you read from the Huffington Press or from other well "respected" internet blogs and journals you take for gospel.

Not sure what crazy talk you are typing with thh Gore comments, I have never mentioned Al Gore and judging by his Carbon Footprint as he travels around the world telling everyone else they should stop using fossil fuels his credability with me and many others is shot.

Look, I am not telling you Republicans are always right but I have to say you folks who preach tolerance the most seem to be the least tolerant of any one who disagrees with you. If you need me to provide the names of all those like Alec Baldwin who said they were leaving if Bush won then you clearly are not paying attention since they were every where for 8 years. In the end you my friend are no different than many of those who came before you and feel the need to hate everyone who even disagrees with you slightly and that is a lot more worry some than some guy saying he is showing up to a rally with a gun. To try and classify those who committ crimes as more republican than democrat is crazy but I can tell you everytime you r left wing organizations show up to protest or parade they are a lot more dangerous than any NRA, Homeschool or Christian Church gathering that comes to town. Try to practice the tolerance you love to preach of those who disagree with you.

I was refering to some of the largest donors and opinion makers within your party talking abot leaving

Name them, please, and provide sources.

As to your comments about guns and people threatening your “life” at rallies you must be kidding me. You do know the Constitution affords all of us the right to bear arms, it is the same Constitution that guarantees you the right to free speech do you remember all parts or only the parts that benefit you?

In retrospect, this part is something I should have clarified; the guns-at-rallies-issue is merely foolishness, and separate from the people who threaten our lives (the ones carrying the weapons openly aren’t the ones we have to worry about). The incredible rise in political violence in the last two years has mostly been attributed to right-wing vitriol, which is demonstrable by the fact that exactly one incident has been perpetrated by a left-wing nutjob, and every other one by a series of right-wing nutjob. And our candidates aren’t using phrases like “resort to Second Amendment solutions” and “take him out”. As for the “right to bear arms”, I am going to do to you exactly what I do to everyone else who insists that right is absolute: Tell, me, proudrepublican, what does the Second Amendment actually say? Then we can have a conversation about selective reading of the Constitution.

I would usggest [sic] you check your facts concerning conservatives and their giving, in the last 20 years it is the democrat [sic] party that has the largest number of single contributions and in the last few Presidential elections the average democrat contribution was far greater than the average republican contribution. My point is your party is nothing more than a group of hollywood elitists who beleive [sic] they can by [sic] their place in history or buy the ability to write history.

Wow, where do I begin? First of all, do conservatives think they’re being cute when they say “Democrat Party”? Actually, there’s a memo from the American Conservative Union about thirty years ago suggesting this as a linguistic way to make Democrat’s sound diminutive. Unlike a lot of the other cute little linguistic tricks conservatives like to use, this one just makes you sound like uneducated or petty. The fact that someone can’t tell the difference between a noun and an adjective makes the rest of us wonder if they’re capable of having a debate on complex issues.
Secondly, I applaud your ability to selectively lie with statistics. Your statement about contributions does nothing to address corporate and PAC money (a larger percentage of which is going to Republicans), and you seem to imply that having a larger number of individual contributions is a bad thing, rather than a further demonstration of the people’s will. As for the “average contribution”, what exactly is your definition of average? The Republican War on Math isn’t nearly as effective as your Wars on History and Science. For example, 47% of contributions to the Obama campaign in 2008 were under $200; only 26% to the McCain campaign were. The percentage of wealthy and corporate donors to Republicans is far higher, and the percentage of small donors is far larger for Democrats. The real indicator, though, is the current election cycle; with the Citizen’s United ruling making donation limits essentially meaningless, the campaign finance reports that I read pretty much daily are getting quite interesting. The number of four and five figure donations has gone through the roof, and easily three out of four are going to Republicans.
Finally, considering the number of actors who run for office as Republicans, I can never help but laugh when I hear “Hollywood Elitists” used as an epithet for the Democratic Party. Ignoring the conservatives’ disdain for fellow American citizens just because of the career those people have chosen, I suppose it’s easier for them to focus so much ire on a single region of a single American city that has very little political pull, rather than attacking Democrats where we actually live… which would be everywhere. We don’t need to buy the ability to write history, because we actually bothered to study it ourselves, rather than being told whatever conspiracy theory is fashionable that week (honestly, if you want to see creative rewriting of history, take a look at the conservative-dominated school board of Texas).

Revisionist history is a hobby for conservatives I’ve noticed. Most of the time it manifests as an hysterical and steadfast belief that things conveniently happened to support their pre-existing notions, rather than forning their ideas around what actually happened, but sometimes they at least present it as a mere theoretical excercise (for example, Newt Gingrich’s Civil War novels, which are based on a whole lot of unlikely events that allow the Confederacy to succeed after committing the greatest act of treason in American history). The reason I bring this up is because of ksparks repeating the favorite GOP talking-point that President Gore would have been unable to handle 9/11 for one reason or another (we’ll ignore ksparks ignorance of what is actually very basic science for now). The whole argument is, of course, as meaningless as any other “might-have-been” historical argument, but just for the sake of the game, I ask: What makes you think this hypothetical President Gore and his National Security Council would have spent their first nine months completely ignoring every intelligence report that came their way about bin Laden and plans for a possible attack, as the real President Bush actually did? Or that – after a mere eighteen months – they would have gotten bored with trying to find the people who planned those attack and launched a war against Iraq instead? This is why revisionism never really works in the end; it has to be based upon events that didn’t actually occur, and is thus not built on a solid foundation in the first place.

IcarusPhoenix not sure where to start other thatn to say just because you throw out a few “rebuttle” commetns that does not make them facts. I was not refering t a few “college” kids I was refering to some of the largest donors and opinion makers within your party talking abot leaving, seems like you have selective memory here! As to your comments about guns and people threatening your “life” at rallies you must be kidding me. You do know the Constitution affords all of us the right to bear arms, it is the same Constitution that guarantees you the right to free speech do you remember all parts or only the parts that benefit you? I would usggest you check your facts concerning conservatives and their giving, in the last 20 years it is the democrat party that has the largest number of single contributions and in the last few Presidential elections the average democrat contribution was far greater than the average republican contribution. My point is your party is nothing more than a group of hollywood elitists who beleive they can by their place in history or buy the ability to write history. Finally let me touch on Robert yrd, nice to se you will at least acknowledge him and his past problems. It was former US senator Ted Kennedy who refered to him as such, and yes he did change his opinions later in liefe, I might add a few years after the rest of America changed their opinoin and it was to his politicall benefit to change it.

As to the Chamber of Commerce comment if they are doing something illegal than prosecute them otherwise they are operating under the McCain-Finegold Act and that is rules written by your side. I am not sure how they are “selling” off America but that is your opinoin and you are allowed to have your own opinion. If you want to talk abot destroying America the Unions have doen far more to hurt us than any other country and I would suggest Unions are a greater reason jobs are leaving this country than any other single force……..

Actually no, Bob. The Supreme court actually ruled that when a state had no prior standards for recounting votes, they couldn’t make up the rules as they went along. Therefore, the counting was stopped and the election in Flroida that had already been certified for George W. Bush stood. I just like giving these kooky leftists on thei site a hard time.

Phoenix, I didn’t inadvertently admit anything. I think the five intelligent SCOTUS justices thought it over and asked themselves what would be best for the country, the son of a former President and two term governor of a very large state or “Ozone Al.” Thank God they chose the former because in the event of 9/11, Gore could never have got past how all the smoke and debris from the tragedies was going to expedite his faux theory of global warming.

Huh, now he says that Obama is the duly elected President… I wonder if this means that Sarah Palin is going to yank her endorsement of him. Call me a conspiracy theorist but the fact that the birther story broke and then that same day she endorsed him, that seems a little fishy to me.

I wonder why he didn’t apologize for that crazy birther lie that he told though, i mean it is a lie, it was proven to be a lie but he just glossed over the fact that he lied. Also if it is so obvious that the president is the president, as he seems to believe now, why didn’t he just say that back when he was asked the questions. In addition, he never admitted that he believes that Barack Obama is an American-born citizen which is why he got in trouble in the first place. Seems like he just doesn’t care what the facts are he is just willing to say whatever he thinks will keep the people voting for him.

Makes me wonder what else he has been telling people just to get their vote…

It’s not often that a pair of brief sentences merits a point-by-point rebuttal, but hey, when someone is so proud f being Republican that they refuse to think through their words, these things happen:

You didn’t see Republicans threatening to leave the country if Obama was elected
No, but we do see them bringing guns to rallies and openly threatening our lives, so as petty as a few college kids may sound idly threatening to move to Canada, they aren’t actually planning violence in retaliation for disagreement.

…you have not seen the likes of George Soros funding Republican candidates
You’ve never heard of the Koch brothers, have you? Or Bob Perry? Or Dick Armey? Or…
Seriously, George Soros is one man, and is very open about every dollar he gives (let’s be honest; while I agree with most of Soros’ positions, the man is a shameless self-publicist). More rich conservatives give far more money, and they do it as quietly as possible.

…and finally you have not seen the IRS used by Republicans to go after those who disagreed with them like you are today.
I’d like to ask what particular conspiracy theory you’re spouting now. This is the first I’ve ever heard of it. However, if you want to hear about misuse of the IRS, ask any older journalist what it was like to be audited every single year of the Nixon administration.

Come on you guys elected a bad comedian to the US Senate and called a former Klan High Wizard the “conscious” of the US Senate Democrat Caucus.
I’m not sure if Robert Byrd was ever our “conscious”, but he never tried to make excuses for his earlier life opinions… which, I might add, were demonstrably different later in life, which is more than I can say for a lot of Conservatives, who still think bizarre things after they’ve been proven wrong (McCarthy’s merits, privatizations efficacy, supply-side economics…). And seriously, this is a sentence you really should have considered. You guys elected a bad actor President.

That being said, thank you for admitting that he was actually elected. You seem to have diverged from GOP talking-points a little there, though not nearly so badly as ksparks, who just inadvertently admitted that the Supreme Court took the 2000 election from Al Gore.

Ched, you have either misunderstood my comment or taken it out of context or both. Giving a remark a hearing or silently moving on is acquiescing in its legitimacy; both imply tacit consent. My first sentence made clear that such comments should be rebutted.

proudrepublican, among your many statements variously wrong or wrong-headed is the following: you have not seen the likes of George Soros funding Republican candidates.” Here you are right in the wrong way. George Soros is up front about giving a lot of money to the Democrats. You do not see Republicans up front about giving a lot of money to the Republicans. In fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is operating like a money -laundering criminal enterprise in collecting money from overseas corporations and governments, mixing those funds in its general account, and refusing to identify the contributors. Those who tout liberty are selling this country to alien companies and states, and will be acting in their interests, not those of the American people.

Steve Pearce is showing a lack of leadership by not telling the woman in Los Lunas that the President is an American and a Christian. This article was about Pearce and lets try and get the comments back to what or why Pearce will not talk straight about the President being an American and a Christian.

Refusing to answer any question by arguing that you don’t want to “legitimize the question” is a specious argument and merely a too convenient excuse to dodge an inconvenient, but never the less legitimate question.

To give (questions) any sort of hearing or to silently move on is to imply their legitimacy.

A question does not become a “legitimate” question as the result of any sort of hearing. A question is legitimate or it is not, on its face. Since the place of birth was important enough to the framers to include it in the Constitution, questions about birth place are legitimate. Each of the follow up questions is also legitimate, or not, on its face.

The elderly thrown out of the nursing home was brought about by the scare tactics of Democrats pandering to the elderly saying that their Social Security and Medicare would be terminated (happens every election cycle). Also Coalcracker, he wasn’t blowing anyone off, he just said it was an issue that needed to be looked into.

As for kooks in the Democratic Party Phoenix, what about the “Republicans are going to kill all the polar bears.” The leftist tree huggers are about as kooky as they come and they are led by none other by a former Vice-President who, by the grace of God and five intellectual SCOTUS justices, didn’t become President.

I believe Pearce should have let this go and shown a bit of leadership by saying “look the voters and others looked at this back when it needed to be and clearly he is President of the United States, this is a good example of why elections have consequences and you shoukld be voting for me!” Anyone who wants to discuss if he is “qualified” to be President is as crazy as those that want to keep investigating the Kennedy assasination or the UFO’s in Roswell.

For those of you who want to defend President Obama for being anything more than a politcian who is pandering to what ever group he is talking to are crazy. This guy is a person of opportunity! He will attend any church and say anyting to get where he is and stay where he is, period. Some of you want to talk about his great accomplishments since taking office, lets see them? Would they be the depression we are in thanks to him and his policies? Can it be the Health Care policies he is promoting and now giving “waivers” to selected folks and companies? How about his get out of the war stance and speeches back when he was a candidate that seem to have changed now that he is actually making the decisions himself? I can keep going on but come on his term so far has been a disaster for this country. As for “Kooks” running the party clearly the democrats have that cornered! You didn’t see Republicans threatening to leave the country if Obama was elected, you have not seen the likes of George Soros funding Republican candidates and finally you have not seen the IRS used by Republicans to go after those who disagreed with them like you are today. Come on you guys elected a bad comedian to the US Senate and called a former Klan High Wizard the “conscious” of the US Senate Democrat Caucus.

Please: Obama is a Christian. I do not know or care whether he was baptized at birth, in some pre-teen ritual–or never. Those who raised him were at least nominal Christians–a fact which would make him at least a nominal Christian. If, as an adult he chose to be a Christian, he chose not to become something which he was not, but to ratify his faith as something more than nominal. Good for him. His articulation is just fine with me. I do not think that he is comparing his convictions or their intensity to the convictions and intensity of the beliefs of others. So let us just give it a rest.

“I am a Christian by choice. I came to my Christian faith later in life[emphasis mine], and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead. Being my brothers’ and sisters’ keeper. Treating others as they would treat me. And I think also understanding that, you know, that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility that we all have to have as human beings.”

Seriously, Dr. J, you really need to learn to look things up before parroting whatever half-formed talking points have been hammered into your head. The President said exactly what you yourself said he should have, and you have the audacity to accuse him of “sloppy language” because after being prompted (twice) to look up what he actually said, you couldn’t be bothered. Disagreement is one thing; disagreeing only because you’re too lazy to check things yourself is just plain bad citizenship.

Obama needs to remember the Orwell wisdom, “Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking”. I would say there is a big difference between growing up in a family that is not very religious and growing up in a family that is not Christian. Which did he mean as being “a Christian by choice”? His explanation is not very clear here.

Interesting reads on Obama’s words. So was he trying to make the distinction that qofdisks proposes, thusly?: ” It is actually more powerful than a person who has always been steeped in their religion and has never questioned it.” Thus qofdisks’ words would indicate Obama is somehow “better or more powerful” than those steeped in the religion? And he is somehow different than those born into Christianity, as Icarus states? Icarus’ opine would imply that Obama was not a Christian by birth. What was he then? I find any of these distinctions people project onto Obama’s vague words to be odd. I think he misspoke and should have just said his family was not religious, and he took to it later after he was inspired by Rev. Wright. His book indictes this.

Dr. J: As opposed to a “Christian by birth”, which would have been clear if you’d bothered to read/hear anything beyond the three word quote.

ksparks: Plenty of Republicans have the guts, moral fortitude, and good sense to confront those rumors directly, and have had no trouble confronting their supporters’ false impressions. Senator McCain is a good example. As for kooks on the left, I would make two points; number one, unlike the GOP, our kooks aren’t running the party. Number two, the example you made about throwing the elderly out of their rest homes is actually one that conservatives were using in the healthcare debate.

The idea of “Mamaw and Pappaw..thrown out of the nursing home…” is the direct result of Sarah Palin’s much publicized dribble that Obama’s “Death Panel” could kill her Down Syndrome baby (The Huffington Post 9/7/09). The last time I checked, Palin was a Republican. Sorry ksparks, but the Rupublicans have the lock on CRAZY this time around. It’s time for people to ignore the crazy claims that Obama is not a citizen, is not Christian, is an alien (in the Roswell sense of the word), etc. The Republican Party has used this scare tactic enough to shift focus away from what the president has achieved, and what still needs to be done. If Pearce is actually intelligent, he should know that people care about real issues, not fabricated ones.

Christian by choice means just that. He was not raised in the church as is so many unthinking fanatics that play along. He was not a religious in his youth. He chose to come to Christianity as a responsible thinking adult having heard the arguments of Christian salvation, he believed. It is actually more powerful than a person who has always been steeped in their religion and has never questioned it.
Also, it is not just a “few” that think this nonsense of Obama’s citizenship is at doubt. It is upwards of 40% of Republicans. I agree with Hays.
As for Heath being afraid of so much spending, history shows that it is the Democrats that have shown more fiscal responsibility than the Republicans. Economists on both the right and left advocate for massive government spending during this deep, deep recession brought on by laissez fair supply side economics touted by discredited Reagonomics and Ayn Rand based misguided trust of corporate greed. We are in a demand hole the size of the Grand Canyon and the corporations keep striving to cut wages and export our jobs. The nation requires state support in a time when American style corporate philosophy has so utterly failed to provision our civilization. It is time for the balance to swing the other way for awhile in favor of workers and the middle class.

Yes, Ksparks, he blows off the less than desirable supporters and loses their support. That’s what a real leader would do. Pearce pandered and as someone who supports him, I am dismayed by his pandering. There is no defense for Pearce on this one.

Leadership in matters which have long been identified with assorted forms of bigotry or craziness manifests itself in rebuttals of such remarks or questions. To give them any sort of hearing or to silently move on is to imply their legitimacy. If Pearce believes that Obama is a Muslim or a Kenyan or a whatever, he is unfit for office. If Pearce tolerates and thus abets those falsehoods in others, he is also unfit for office. His remarks show either that he is not guided by a regard for the truth or that he is not strong in its defense. Who needs another corrupt or weak representative?

Very well said Heath. This is a troubling set of words by Pearce. He should immediately explain what he really means, or risk the moderate votes he has on his side. But I found Obama’s words very awkward here: “I’m a Christian by choice”. You mean as opposed to a Christian by force or coercion or intimidation? That sounds like he trying to make a distinction between himself and other Christians and I don’t understand why or what possible purpose that serves.

Heath, I hear you, loud and clear but, in Steve Pearce’s defense, I have to say that when speaking at a gathering and taking questions “off the cuff” as Pearce does, there is always at least one or two less than desirable supporters in attendence. These are the ones who ask the stupid questions, which could almost be proof that they are from the other side specifically baiting the candidate. We all know that’s not necessarily true because they have been at other similar gatherings, etc.

What is one to do? Call them on it and risk losing their given support or say something like, “there are significant concerns” about that issue? Steve didn’t actually say he believed it, he rather brushed it off to get to a more serious and legitimate question.

Before those on the left start bashing us conservatives for always having “kooks” in the audience, remember, your side has them as well. Those that ask Democrats running for office, “Are you going to make sure Mamaw and Pappaw don’t get thrown out of the nursing home on the street because, that’s what them Republicans are trying to do.”